tv Mc Laughlin Group PBS September 29, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT
captions by: caption colorado, llc (800) 775-7838 e- mail: firstname.lastname@example.org from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, hardest talk. that's d for debate. d for determinator. tuesday night next week, 9:00 do 10:30, hours from now, location, denver, colorado, university of denver. participants, democratic party endorsed presidential candidate barack obama, republican party
endorsed presidential candidate mitt romney. debate subject area, domestic policy. debate moderator, jim lara. structure, six 15-minute segment. three focus on the economy, four, five, and six health care, the role of government and governing. procedure, each candidate gets two minutes to respond to a question posed by jim lara. time remaining is given to freewheeling discussion of segments. risk factor, dangerous, sometimes lethal. ♪ [music] ♪ >> are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security
is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? if you answer all of those questions yes, why then i think your choice is obvious as to who you'll vote for. if you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then i could suggest another choice that you have. >> jimmy jimmy carter practical gagging. question, who will win the debate on tuesday? can romney pull a reagan? pat bu cannen? >> that's exactly what he's going to do, john. reagan came into the debate with a caricature, an out-of- touch old geezer with 1930s values and views, cowboy, not very knowledgeable, and he knocked that dead by his appearance and the way he handled himself. romney comes in and is similarly caricatured partly because of his own mistakes and partly because of what democrats said about him,
partly because of the merciless attacks from the media on him. so he's got to be a fighter, someone who's competent, tough and takes the measure of barack obama and says look, we can't take four more years of this and here's where we're going. if he comes in there tough and competent and destroys that caricature, i think he can still wake up this country, and i think there's still a chance he can turn it around. he's got to win it, though, john. >> obama's campaign staff is telling everybody it sees how good romney is at debating. >> well, each of the campaigns sent out a memo basically saying how good the other guy is and stressing all of their guy's flaws. ironically, they are right. both of talented debaters. obama has some advantages. he's debated in the general election stage before. romney has the advantage of having simply debated more over
the last year. so i think it's kind of an even stage there, but the situation is not comparable to reagan versus carter. the economic metrics when carter was running for re- election were extremely negative, much more negative than they are today, and just this last week, polls show that the pub has more confidence in the president's economic views and vision and program than romney. so he has lost the one advantage that he once had. secondly, there were a lot of independent, undecided voters in 1980 who had lost faith in carter and were just waiting to see if they could feel confidence in his challenger. there are so few independent voters. this is an election that's about mobilizing the bases. so going after the independent voter is not a big surprise. having said all that in the memo put out by david axelrod -- >> who is who?
>> he's the campaign guru on the obama side. >> right. >> he points out that five of the last six challengers won the first debate. i think the temptation by the media is going to be to say that romney did what he had to, is in the game, because we want a race. >> i'm not so sure about that. [ laughter ] >> we want the race to continue. what else would we talk about? >> all i've heard for weeks and weeks is that it's all over. this debate is obviously extremely consequential. the debates and primaries are consequential because it is the one source of truly unfiltered information you can get. romney handled himself quite well. is he an adept debater. the problem is, it isn't a 1980s situation. the theory going into the race on the romney side is he has to show up and reassure people. that's what his whole convention was about. he has a much higher bar than that. he needs to convince people that his program is a better answer for the country. that's what he has to do.
it's not going to be easy to do because there's going to be lots of distractions coming at him and the president himself is quite an adept debater. >> he had clinton at the convention. >> that comes down to the two theories of the race. one was right, one was wrong. the romney theory, tell ople it's okay even though the president's a nice guy to vote against him because everyone's primed to vote against him. the democrats went into the convention realizing they needed to make a substantive case and tear down romney's agenda. romney needs to build that up again. >> have you everybody observed, mortimer, how -- have you observed, mortimer, how much the president relies on a teleprompter and of course romney probably less so? but he's been out there in the field. obama really hasn't been debating, and he doesn't have a teleprompter during the debate. >> he won't have a teleprompter, but let's face it, he is an articulate speaker and i'm sure he'll practice enough so he doesn't need one. i have a slightly different
view of what romney has to do. he has to establish himself as a credible candidate and credible occupant of the presidency. that is not something he has done just yet. if he comes across forcefully enough and with enough clarity on his program, then a lot of people will look and say, hey, i think this guy can be the president what do we think about obama? with all due respect, i think the economy is in the worst shape since the great depression and nothing has happened to improve it. >> yeah. >> so obama's really vulnerable on the major issue which 70% of the country thinks is the major issue. >> i would argue that "nothing has been done to improve the economy. i think that's debatable and i think we believe the poll." romney is a man at war with himself. he has to it go in and be the aggressor here and take the fight to the president. he also has to prove himself more likable. those two objectives are at odds with each other. >> what does he have to
project? >> he has to project a credible program that will sell the american people on -- >> what does he have to project about himself? >> the whole likability thing. >> he has to project confidence in himself? [ all talking at once ] >> excuse me, i want to finish my thought, please. >> we all want to fin shall a thought. >> please. he needs to project a credible economic program that would sell the american people that he would be better than the current occupant. [ all talking at once ] >> let pat in. let pat in. >> his problem is not confidence. his problem is, is he one of us? does he really understand us? he's got to do a number of things. rich is right, he's not only got to say, look, this guy, obama basically is a good guy. he has failed. he's got no new ideas. we're going down the same road, and we can't do that. here is where we are going, my friend. >> that's the key thing.
>> friendly and tough -- [ all talking at once ] >> you are directing the president's -- >> use the humor to dismiss- type humor in his approach to the other guy. >> it's like saying never go to a doctor whose office plants have died, okay? whatever his programs are, the president's programs have failed. the economy isn't growing except they have reduced the rate of growth in the economy to 1.2% so don't tell me his programs are working. >> hold on. [ all talking at once ] >> people know that. >> swing voters? how does he get the swing voters? >> i think there are more swing votes than eleanor thinks. if you look at romney's 47% remark, it hurt and persuaded people the wrong way. the key thing is not just saying the president has failed it's convincing people that romney's program is better. people don't believe that yet.
>> he has not put out any credible program. he talks in platitudes, and because he is afraid of offending his base, he can't come out with a credible program because he can't say -- [ all talking at once ] >> he's got to put the word -- >> i want to hear pat. >> the word he's got to put out there, if you elect me, we have hope for a better time in the next four years than this guy can conceivably offer because of the mess he delivered -- >> you think that obama can put romney on the defensive? >> i don't think so. >> can romney put obama on the defensive? >> he'll have to. >> both could put the other on the defensive. >> who is going to fight for that and proceed as though it doesn't exist? >> no, no, no, they will both fight for that. the whole point is now, whoever two-thirds of the country think the economy is headed in the wrong discretion. there is a huge 23%, 23 million people are out of work. people have lost 40% of the net worth and 40% of the income. >> and they are more optimistic about the president all of
issue two, mahmoud versus bb. >> the policies of the world's main centers of power are based on the principle of domination and the conquering of others. these centers only seek supremacy and are not in favor of peace and definitely not at the service of their nations. continued threats by the unsievelized designennists to resort to military action against our great nation is a clear example of this bit of reality. >> in his speech before the united nations general assembly, mahmoud amidin jab, he railed against israel and the west and their interference with his country. the u.s. and israel have repeatedly warned iran not to build a nuclear bomb. iran insists that its nuclear energy is not weapons grade but
for peaceful purposes like medical treatments. on thursday, israel's prime minister netanyahu had none of it. >> so at this late hour, there's only one way to peacefully present iran from getting atomic bombs and that's by placing a clear red line on iran's nuclear weapons program. red lines don't lead to war. red lines prevent war. >> the prime minister has urged the u.s. to set clear nuclear thresholds for iran. red lines, he said, meaning if iran crosses a red line, military action will be taken by israel. question, in the "wall street journal" this week, alan dershowitz called on obama to forget netanyahu's red line based on a qualifiable amount
of enriched uranium and instead declare a black line. the u.s. will not tolerate iran to be in possession of nuclear arms. so who's right? the red line or the black line? mort? >> the israelis feel that if as netanyahu was pointing out, if you get the nuclear capabilities within 15 days of being able to launch rockets against israel, that is a disaster for israel. it is an existential threat. the warning is between 10 and 12 minutes. so you fire a number of rockets and one of them lands it is the end of israel. so that's what he's worried about. alan dershowitz has a different way measuring it, but i would trust bb's interpretation since he is the prime minister. >> that's all based on physics and whether or not he is right in all of this. >> i don't think anybody will disagree with the description of the way netanyahu was describing the development of the efficientable material
that is necessary for atomic weapons. he was a are lot clearer this time, by the way and delayed it until the middle of next year. >> iran has no nuclear weapons program. there is no nuclear weapons program, according to 16 united states intelligence agencies in 2007, reaffirmed in 2011. even the israelis are now saying we think the americans were right. they don't have a nuclear weapons program. the ayatollah has said nuclear weapons on iran's part would be immom, unjust and unislammic. so why are we now considering talking about a war on a country to he dehe prior it of weapons of mass destruction it does not have? >> the big news out of netanyahu's speech is he reaffirmed the fact that israel has no intention of attacking iran before the november election. i think there was concern that there'd be this november surprise. and i think that the intelligence agencies in this country and in israel agree that iran has not made the
decision to go nuclear and what netanyahu wants to do is if they get close, he wants a preemptive attack. let's talk about it after the election. i think netanyahu's attempts to insert himself in american politicses have backfired. >> to pick up pat's point, you may be correct. >> there is already a black line. >> the reason he gets it now is look at this page 1 of the "new york times." >> that's a cartoon. >> that's not a cartoon. that's b.b. netanyahu. >> look at the "wall street journal," your newspaper, pat. there he is, bb netanyahu explaining it. then we have the "washington post" right here first front. bb netanyahu explaining it. what about it? >> i'll tell what you there is a black line. the united states -- obama has said they will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. obama's already got that on the record. so there is this black line that already exists. >> president obama as he points out puts responsibility for our military action
. >> we respect the right of nations to access nuclear power. one of the purposes of the united nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. that's why the united states will do whfrom obtaining a nucl weapon. >> meaning that we are members of the united nations. if the united nations decides to use military force, then we will go along with the united nations because we're also -- [ all talking at once ] >> america has made this u.n. worthless. america has made a statement that we will not -- >> obama -- >> obama has said so. that's it. >> obama is tossing this load right over to united nations,he not? >> no money. >> no. >> he said the united nations will take care of it in so many words about. >> no, that's not what he said. >> we're members of the united nations. >> he was clearly saying what the united states would do, not
what the united nations would do. >> is this physics or optics on the part of netanyahu? >> it's physicsp. >> it's also optics. >> of course. because when you have something that look hikes an atomic bomb and smells like an atomic bomb and can blow you up, it no longer becomes optics. >> didn't you say at the beginning this suddenly emerges as a big what, edge of the election issue? >> if it failed, it failed. john stewart had the perfect approach on him in the cartoowas silly. >> they kicked it over into the new year. the whole thing has been kicked over to the new year. >> has it become kicked over to the new administration? >> there may not be a new administration. >> there may be one. >> that may be part of the calculation as well. >> we know that the romneys and the netanyahus had dinner together.
>> that doesn't mean we're going to war. >> iran is among israelis and palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. let us leave behind those who drive on conflict, those who reject the right of israel to exist. the road is hard, but the destination is clear. a secure, jewish state of israel and an independent prosperous palestine. [ applause ] understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties. america will alongside all who are prepared to make that journey. >> reporter: president obama at the u.n. on tuesday revived an issue that used to be front and center, israeli-palestinian peace. prime minister netanyahu has been focusing on iran while talks with the palestinians
stalled. this week, israel's minister of defense and former prime minister, the widely respected ehud barack refocused attention on the israel/palestine issue. he urged that israel withdraw settlements from the west bank, the home of 2.5 million palestinians. in the ideal order, he said, "it is better to reach an agreement with the palestinians, but if that does not happen, we must take practicaa separation." question,a renewed push for a peace agreement between israel and the palestinians in the cards? yes or no mort? >> i don't think there will be an agreement but i think what ehud barack is doing makes sense. it's what sharon did when he pulled them out of gaza and what the israelis originally did when they formed the state leaving the west bank for 2.5 million palestinians. so i do think there is going to have to be something. i think this is one approach because the palestinians are
not prepared to negotiate. >> how much would that cost? >> what do you mean? >> the removal of the settlements. [ all talking at once ] >> they're not going to do it, john. >> there are a number of settlements. the major settlement blocks which are close to the current israeli border will stay with israel, and the rest of it -- [ all talking at once ] >> that's exactly right. >> that is an enormous outlay. >> is it realistic? >> no. >> compared to what, though? >> no, john it's not. [ all talking at once ] >> abbas was more correct when he said the palestinian issue is at the bottom of the global agenda. if this ever happened it would be an absolute last resort and represent israel throwing its hands up the way it did with gaza, and you might very well have the same result when you did it. >> there's a reason. >> the p.a. is corrupt. >> why does -- >> bb netanyahu opposed the withdrawal from gaza.
you really think he's going to pull settlers, tear them off the west bank and say, get out of there and give that back to the palestinians? get real. >> is this an effort to pull us off some kind of a track that we're on? >> this is barack's own little gamble. >> there's no track. the obama administration tried very hard. >> what is it they don't want to us talk about? on the edge of this election of a new president, of a president, not a new president, of a president? >> i don't want they don't want to us talk about. i know what they want to alk ab >> to talk about it now? >> they want to us talk about iran, that's exactly right because that is the existential threat to israel. >> do you think in a second term obama will go along with the idea? >> with this idea here? >> yeah. >> let me put it this way. i'm willing to put a lot of issue friend or foe? since the historic camp david
accords, egypt has been treated as a u.s. ally and corner stone of our middle east diplomacy. president anwar sadat and hosni mubarak were frequent guests at the white house. in a recent interview with telemumdo, president obama said this regarding egypt, "i don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy." in addition to the $1.3 billion annually in military aid, egypt recently received another $1 billion in loan forgiveness in the u.s. but not meeting with obama during his u.s. visit. question,the u.s./egyptian relationship in trouble? >> of course it is. morsi's speech was a declaration of independence
from us. i thought the most interesting theme from u.n. besides b.b. and the bomb was the debate over free speech between the west and muslim world. i think the administration has been weak on this, and the administration should be leading a western block that is as coherent and committed to free speech as the muslim block is to trying to impose blasphemy lous. >> the president made that point in his speech -- >> not enough. >> that offensive speech should be created with nor speech. this is not the tradition in that part of the world. we can't expect them -- >> we played footsie with this effort. we have played footsie with this effort. >> we played footsie with the dictators too. >> the reaction to the video has been shameful. >> i think it's my turn to speak. >> the video justifies any of this that happened over there. you are taking the videomaker at midnight for questioning down at the police station? >> are you finished with your
soap box yet, rich? >> exactly the wrong signal. >> are you defending that video? >> no i'm defending free speech. >> you just did. we have limits in this country. you don't shout fire in a crowded theater. they want limits. >> you want to ban that video? >> i remember liberals were in favor of free speech. [ all talking at once ] >> you'd better moderate this debate, pat. >> let me just say i think who morsi is saying, look, you americans' values may justify insults and blaspheming the prophet. we don't believe that. we kill people in our country when they do that. if y'all are going to do that repeatedly, you are not going to be a friend of the people in the u.s. lamic world and not likely to be treated as friends. >> that's an impossible standard. >> it's irreconcilable. >> that is an impossible standard. >> please, will you relinquish? >> that's the way the world works, rich. get used to it.
>> how does the world work? [ all talking at once ] >> not according to everything you say. >> let's talk about the former head of state over in egypt. >> mubarak. >> yeah. he's in excellent physical condition according to his doctors. what is going on? >> nobody knows what the definition of excellent physical condition because he obviously was very ill for quite a while. is he no longer a factor in egyptian politics. the fact that he's being replaced from morsi. >> he's from the muslim brotherhood. >> right. >> what you had in egypt was a democratic 'legislation of a totalitarian regime. >> the amount of foreign aid we give them, if you add it all together it's $1.3 plus about another billion and a quarter. >> that's right. >> so that's about the upper end of three. >> two. >> three, four, five? >> the critical issue is who controls the military?
morsi has replaced over 70 generals and put in all of his own people. that's the real force in egypt, okay? we no longer have access to that. >> do you think obama -- k there's anything at work that's going to try to expunge the possible growing inclination to believe that barack obama is the author of the arab spring? and therefore, he has a disaster on his hands? >> the arab spring is a disaster for the arabs. >> you remember how he went over there? >> he went there first and he's never been to israel. >> and egypt is the most powerful member of that whole part of the world. >> i agree. i'm not saying it did, okay? what happened here was some kind of almost a natural explosion in part because the mubarak regime was corrupt. this regime will have its own play at that. so i don't know how stable they are, but they can stay around because they control the
military. >> mubarak was a good friend of israel, was he not? >> was a predictions, pat. november 24, at that time loney will vote to secede from spain. >> i said that last week. >> super pacs will shift away from romney and put it into todd aiken in missouri. >> rich? >> republican todd aiken will lose in missouri but just barely. >> mort? >> the decline of the second quarter gdp means we'll have poor economic numbers and unemployment numbers for the rest of this year. >> and it will be reported that the assassinated u.s. ambassador of libya chris stevens knew he was on an al qaeda hit list and inadequately protected before